[Mike_Young]

I was watching three foursomes of Chinese golfers play one of my courses last week ....they seems to be having a good time but the front nine took over 2 1/2 hours and they had to let people thru on almost every other hole....this might be acceptable for a year or so if one is a new golfer but then it would get old quickly.....I remember growing up on courses where you could learn to play without deep bunkers, large greens etc...
The other question I finally had to ask myself is ...How many modern golfers ever get to hit as little as a seven iron to a 350 yard par 4?  The answer is scary....not many....
The answer is not 6 hole courses....3 hole practice areas etc.....we need more of the old junkers that were around and allowed the game to develop in the 50's and 60's....if not....hmmmmm

[Joe Grasty]

I played nine-hole pitch-n-putts for more than a year before I walked onto an 18-hole golf course.  I can't understand why anyone would want to go play on a "real course" before they can get around a par-27 nine-holer in just a few over par.

[Mac Plumart]

Joe...the answer to your question is ego and pride. 

Mike...you are totally correct.  Make a basic golf course.  Very basic.  The game is hard enough for a beginner.  It doesn't matter if the fairway is dead straight, the hole is a 325 yard par 4 without any bunkers, and the greens are totally flat.  The begin has such a hard time simply hitting the ball straight and controling distance on the short game, they still won't make par...at least right away.

Build courses like this, let them practice without getting demoralized, have a few rounds of pretty good scores, and then upgrade...or not.  Heck, they might like shooting really low scores.

But I think if you have a pretty solid clubhouse, and "pretty" the course up...the ego and pride of the beginner will then, and only then, allow them to play this course.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

It's e-z to pigeonhole the architecture -- the simple fact is that few people really seek out qualified teaching to help them.

Same thing happens on the ski slopes --you get people totally unprepared and they think the double diamond hills are for them.

Also, most people don't know their own limitations -- people see the sign in front of the 1st at Bethpage Black and think it applies to everyone else -- accept them.

One other thing -- if mgmt at most facilities got off their fat asses and really monitor play the net result would also be helped.

[Joe Grasty]

There's a 27-hole course in Grand Prairie, TX called Prairie Lakes that fits this mold. No bunkers at all. Hardest nine is rated 35.5 with 58 slope, 3300 yds. There is some water on the course, as it runs along a lake.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I don't believe that slow play is a product of the architecture, rather a product of too much watching of PGA Tour golf and the emerging culture that's developed.

A woman, a very attractive woman, with Ran in attendance, asked me about playing golf and what was necessary in order to be accepted by established golfers.

I said, just a few things, know the etiquette, play fast and always watch and know where your ball is.

If you can do all three, you can play with anybody.

Unfortunately, today, few golfers seem capable of 3 out of 3, thus taking the toll on all other fellow golfers on the course that day.

[jeffwarne]

I was watching three foursomes of Chinese golfers play one of my courses last week ....they seems to be having a good time but the front nine took over 2 1/2 hours and they had to let people thru on almost every other hole....this might be acceptable for a year or so if one is a new golfer but then it would get old quickly.....I remember growing up on courses where you could learn to play without deep bunkers, large greens etc...
The other question I finally had to ask myself is ...How many modern golfers ever get to hit as little as a seven iron to a 350 yard par 4?  The answer is scary....not many....
The answer is not 6 hole courses....3 hole practice areas etc.....we need more of the old junkers that were around and allowed the game to develop in the 50's and 60's....if not....hmmmmm

No Mike they have them.
5670 yards from the most forward of the 8 sets of tees (Oops I forgot,,2700 yards from the jr. tees)
except it's a 500 yard walk from green to tee-every hole

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

Now there's a sales pitch that I'm sure will attract a lot of work for an architect:

I Specialize In Creating Old Clunkers!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

The bunkerless golf course may be a whole nother thread, but a good topic.

Years ago I remodeled the Pioneer Park in Lincoln, and made it bunkerless. I also designed their new course, the Highlands.  While I don't know other than anecdotally, I suspect both are equally popular, because pioneer park has a certain old time, tree filled charm.

In general, I do think the ongoing design trends of length for players that don't use it contributes to the decline of golf subtley, in terms of time to play, cost to maintain, etc.  Right now I am focused on shortening up courses (at least the forward two tees) and getting folks to play there, because its more fun.

Would changing the mindset of golf from imitating tournament competition to some kind of fun competition reasonably skill appropriate help golf, too?

[Jason Connor]

The architect is just building what the property owner / developer asks him to build.

So you can't blame the architect.

I agree that more par 3's or executive courses would be great. And one near me would increase the amount of golf I play which has plummeted as a relatively new dad.  But we've also heard on this board many times why executives courses don't work very well.

[Brent Hutto]

My teaching pro buddy told me several years ago, when I first started getting into paying attention to GCA and traveling around to play interesting courses, that as far as he could see there was no growth potential, long-term, in higher end and championship courses. That kind of course was overbuilt and over-expensive even in the late 90's. At least in this part of the world (Southeaster USA).

He said the only remaining area for growth was courses with compact layouts, minimal rough and hazards, more like 6,000 yards than 7,000 and rough-and-ready irrigation and maintenance practices. The kind of place someone who hits the ball short and crooked can still have a Nassau with his buddies for a $30 green fee and be back at the snack bar drinking beer four hours later. The kind of place you can just go out any time you feel like hacking it around for an afternoon without it being a big, expensive production.

I think there will always be a market, perhaps not a big growth market but still a lot of rounds, for that version of "golf" without all the rigmarole that the business has encrusted itself with over the past 30-40 years. The problem being, in most areas, where are you going to find affordable land for even a short, compact course that's within easy driving distance of a few hundred potential customers. Most likely it will have to be redevelopment or revitalization of property already being used for golf, don't you think?

Is there any chance the 2010's or 2020's will see a bunch of defunct or nearly so Country Clubs,  CCFAD's and "High-End Golf Communities" be re-purposed into shorter, scruffier, easier, lower-input, maintainable courses? I wonder how those home owners whose houses are built around lush, wall-to-wall green walking dead courses would feel about it becoming a $30 public course rather than more houses or (God forbid) apartments?

I can't recall the name of it but as you're passing through Bluffton on the main road out to the Island there's a course right on the highway there to the right. Maybe "Rose Hill" or something like that? Apparently that sort of thing happened to it a few years ago, right? The property owners didn't want the course to go away but the operators went bankrupt. So it now has a sign facing the road saying something like "PUBLIC WELCOME...$37 INCLUDES FREE DOZEN NIKE GOLF BALLS". Is that the future of a couple thousand housing-development courses nationwide?

[John Kavanaugh]

Hitting the ball is fun, putting is not.  It would really help if Coore and Crenshaw, Doak and their imitators would quit building such stupidly hard to putt greens.  Isn't if funny how the intellectuals on this site who never putt out think the masses just don't get it, wrongo, they just don't like it.

[William_G]

Excellent editorial on this in this month's Pacific Northwest Golfer by John Bodenhamer about designing 4 hole loops within your course architecture to take pressure off the time factor in golf.

John K, IMHO, most hackers like putting whatever the contour because everyone can become an adequate putter whereas hitting is where it is most difficult. Bring on the windmills, LOL.

[John Kavanaugh]

Excellent editorial on this in this month's Pacific Northwest Golfer by John Bodenhamer about designing 4 hole loops within your course architecture to take pressure off the time factor in golf.

John K, IMHO, most hackers like putting whatever the contour because everyone can become an adequate putter whereas hitting is where it is most difficult. Bring on the windmills, LOL.

William,

Have you played Ballyneal or Bandon Trails?  Hackers can't like five putting, and I say five putting because they are forced to pick up after the fourth putt.

[William_G]

Excellent editorial on this in this month's Pacific Northwest Golfer by John Bodenhamer about designing 4 hole loops within your course architecture to take pressure off the time factor in golf.

John K, IMHO, most hackers like putting whatever the contour because everyone can become an adequate putter whereas hitting is where it is most difficult. Bring on the windmills, LOL.

William,

Have you played Ballyneal or Bandon Trails?  Hackers can't like five putting, and I say five putting because they are forced to pick up after the fourth putt.

Love Trails. Old Macdonald is also off the charts. When C B Macdonald went away from bowling alley golf back in the early 1900's, where the score was most present in one's mind in US golf, the focus turned to the journey and the "luck" factor. The game grew!

Who doesn't love watching the Masters and describing putts with their buddies as like "Augusta".

Now, the reason people play less or not at all is "time", not the score. Thanks.

[Garland Bayley]

Hitting the ball is fun, putting is not.  It would really help if Coore and Crenshaw, Doak and their imitators would quit building such stupidly hard to putt greens.  Isn't if funny how the intellectuals on this site who never putt out think the masses just don't get it, wrongo, they just don't like it.

Putting is certainly fun for some high handicappers. Kalen and I both appreciate the opportunity to level the playing field with low handicappers when we get to the green. It is the golf skill that most everyone can become somewhat good at.

I don't see bunkers as a problem, other than there are far too many of them on modern courses raising costs unnecessarily. Perhaps Phil Young can chime in, but I remember that Tilly in Remini... wrote something to the effect that you need no more than one green side bunker, and most fairway bunkers are overkill.

Golf is also a social game. Providing multiple sets of tees puts strains on the social nature. Reign in the ball and get back to two tees per hole!

[jeffwarne]

Garland,

Bingo on the bunkers and the tees
7 sets of tees insure that everybody's pissed off about the set they end up playing.......

[Jeff_Brauer]

Had this discussion at GIS this week.

Basically, for as far back as I can recall, the subtle biggest influence in golf design was for photography in magazines, not for playing every day.  Design to get rankings, etc.  Design with shadows to sell housing.  Designing for a Tournament that never came.  Designing for Pro and low handicap players that never came.  Designing for the average guys golf game that would come once he spent time on the extensive practice facility (although that time never came)

In other words, designing for almost everything except for the golf game of the guys who play every day.

Even with that, I am not sure its anything other than money driving play down right now.  Its just that the fixed plant, and in many cases, now fixed ideas about maintenance levels can't be brought in line with what people want to pay.  At least it can't be brought in line quickly.  It will take time for both golf courses and attitudes to adjust to the middle.

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, wow, musta been a multiple Scotch conversation LOL

[Philippe Binette]

The problem is everybody is trying to out-do the other

one bunker and two nice contours on or around the green can make a good par 4 (look at the Midland pictures)...

when you get called to improve the course, it's about making it tougher, longer, more this, more that...
nobody calls and architect and say: hi I want you to make my course more fun

[Tim Nugent]

The problem is everybody is trying to out-do the other

one bunker and two nice contours on or around the green can make a good par 4 (look at the Midland pictures)...

when you get called to improve the course, it's about making it tougher, longer, more this, more that...
nobody calls and architect and say: hi I want you to make my course more fun

Maybe true up to about 10 years ago but since then the tide turned.  The trick is to figure out how to make a course BETTER for the membership and usually it is a combination of something for everyone.

[William_G]

I was watching three foursomes of Chinese golfers play one of my courses last week ....they seems to be having a good time but the front nine took over 2 1/2 hours and they had to let people thru on almost every other hole....this might be acceptable for a year or so if one is a new golfer but then it would get old quickly.....I remember growing up on courses where you could learn to play without deep bunkers, large greens etc...
The other question I finally had to ask myself is ...How many modern golfers ever get to hit as little as a seven iron to a 350 yard par 4?  The answer is scary....not many....
The answer is not 6 hole courses....3 hole practice areas etc.....we need more of the old junkers that were around and allowed the game to develop in the 50's and 60's....if not....hmmmmm

No, architecture is not the problem, the courses are better than ever! However, it is the time perceived to be required.  Who wants to spend 5 1/2 hours playing Pebble more than once a year... it just takes too long regardless of cost or how cool it is.

I love being first off and finishing 18 in 3 hrs. or less, that is sweet. Or playing on a afternoon when nobody is around.

Golf on TV grew interest but now with almost every pro taking his life to line up every shot, this has caused slow play, as people to mimic the pro behavior.

It's all about the expectation of 18 holes and the large amount of time allocated for that to be achieved, golf widows are not acceptable much less fatherless kids.

So lets get some shorter loops integrated into our course designs and tee sheets.

Thanks

[Jeff_Brauer]

It is perception.

As far as I can recall, public golf was ALWAYS a five hour round.  We have ALWAYS complained about it as if it was a new thing.

So, maybe golfers complained but accepted back when Dad worked, mom stayed at home, and Dad needed some R and R.  Now, both work, pick kids up from daycare and feel like they need to spend weekends driving to soccer, etc.

How many non golfers do you know that comment that they may take it up when they retire?

[Mike_Young]

I was watching three foursomes of Chinese golfers play one of my courses last week ....they seems to be having a good time but the front nine took over 2 1/2 hours and they had to let people thru on almost every other hole....this might be acceptable for a year or so if one is a new golfer but then it would get old quickly.....I remember growing up on courses where you could learn to play without deep bunkers, large greens etc...
The other question I finally had to ask myself is ...How many modern golfers ever get to hit as little as a seven iron to a 350 yard par 4?  The answer is scary....not many....
The answer is not 6 hole courses....3 hole practice areas etc.....we need more of the old junkers that were around and allowed the game to develop in the 50's and 60's....if not....hmmmmm

No, architecture is not the problem, the courses are better than ever! However, it is the time perceived to be required.  Who wants to spend 5 1/2 hours playing Pebble more than once a year... it just takes too long regardless of cost or how cool it is.

I love being first off and finishing 18 in 3 hrs. or less, that is sweet. Or playing on a afternoon when nobody is around.

Golf on TV grew interest but now with almost every pro taking his life to line up every shot, this has caused slow play, as people to mimic the pro behavior.

It's all about the expectation of 18 holes and the large amount of time allocated for that to be achieved, golf widows are not acceptable much less fatherless kids.

So lets get some shorter loops integrated into our course designs and tee sheets.

Thanks

IMHO the issues you describe evolve from the course's architecture...cheers

[Harvey Dickens]

I believe 80% of the golfers never consider architecture. I think money and time or the lack there of is the major problem today. If you have not been economically affected the last few years, you are very fortunate. Even some of us who have not been affected are spending more time working due to company cutbacks. Jobs and money return, golf picks up again.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()